- Joined
- Jun 11, 2009
- Messages
- 19,657
- Reaction score
- 8,454
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
OK becoming to much to respond to, so I will summarize my position and we can go from there.
I have no problem and support gay couples adopting even more so than single parent adoptions. I have stated this multiple times throughout the thread.
I agree with the experts and a proven history that a male, female home is the optimal parental arrangement for child rearing. This has nothing at all to do with gays adopting.
Nothing.
I was just making the point that people new what I meant, and that his comparing alcoholic abusive parents to loving good parents was nothing more than a red herring fallacy.
Your comment added nothing new to the discussion and meant nothing, since there was no context. Children do better with a mother and father is meaningless unless you quantify it. Children do better with a mother and father do better than what? Better than without a mother and a father? All things being equal, of course, but that had nothing to do with the conversation and as you said it, illogical. That is the point.
Since you were making your comment on top of digsbe's where he was saying that gay parents are not as good as heterosexual ones, children do better with a mother and father do better? Better than... look, it is obvious that you made a benign yet meaningless comment. I understood what you were trying to say, but like I said, the way that you said it was meaningless.
What is worse is seeing you try and take some superior logical position while and you are making a logical fallacy trying to defend your original comment... Appeal to Popularity. Everyone didn't understand you, a few might but others might not. I though, called you one it.
...And it wasn't a Red Herring, it was logic itself.
If a point can be proven incorrect by example, then the point isn't logical. Children do no always do better with a mother and a father. It is illogical to make such a statement. I didn't attempt to divert any point you made, and that is wha ta Red Herring fallacy is, an attempt to divert.
LOL!
.to adress that as if it means anything... seriously pathetic.
In the end, you made a meaningless and illogical comment. Great. Now what? Do you want a cookie?
If you had read what I had stated before, which is again why I was not responding to you it would have had meaning.
You keep saying I jumped into your conversation when it was the exact opposite and then made a bad assumption.
You did not call me on anything. You made a bad assumption and than tried to use what amounted to a fallacy that was completely irrelevant. Again the response was not to you, and you did not bother to read what came before.
Yes a logical fallacy.
Then take this opportunity and point out how...
"comparing alcoholic abusive parents to loving good parents"
had anything even remotely to do with what I said other than a fallacy argument that was pointless and an attempt to divert from my actual argument.
Now you are baiting and making personal attacks.
Have a good evening.
OK becoming to much to respond to, so I will summarize my position and we can go from there.
I have no problem and support gay couples adopting even more so than single parent adoptions. I have stated this multiple times throughout the thread.
I agree with the experts and a proven history that a male, female home is the optimal parental arrangement for child rearing. This has nothing at all to do with gays adopting or raising a family.
Different levels of good exist.
You people seem to think everything is all or nothing. Get over it.
Please point out the fallacy? It has been a huge success for a very long time. You can ignore this as irrelevant, but it does not by any means make it a fallacy.
OK you are misunderstanding what I am saying.
I am saying it has been a huge success for a long time. It has shown to be the best, period. It may not be by any huge margin, but it is still the optimal family. This includes the ability to breed and raise a successful child into adulthood.
Other variables exist, but this does not change the rate of success vs any other way in the history of mankind.
I am saying it has been a huge success for a long time.
It has shown to be the best, period.
:roll: Only in your book.
My position is based on history and fact. Yours is based on a few studies that prove a same sex couple can successfully raise a child. This does not make it the best solution. That would be like saying a single parent home is as good as a 2 parent home because single parents have raised successful children. The single parent home is not optimal.
OK becoming to much to respond to, so I will summarize my position and we can go from there.
I have no problem and support gay couples adopting even more so than single parent adoptions. I have stated this multiple times throughout the thread.
I agree with the experts and a proven history that a male, female home is the optimal parental arrangement for child rearing. This has nothing at all to do with gays adopting or raising a family.
Different levels of good exist.
You people seem to think everything is all or nothing. Get over it.
Does the person or persons who are spamming the poll attached to this thread actually think it has ANY meaning whatsoever now that it has obviously been co-opted by idiots?
For that matter, that it had any meaning before?
Everybody and their great uncle can vote on it as many times as they wish.
So...please, stop your idiocy...if you are even reading this.
So 57 legitimate (as in, from registered members) votes, let's round to 60, so ~5/6 of the votes are NO.One of the cool things about being a mod is that, even if the poll is private, I can tell who voted for what. Currently, there are 59 non-legitimate "NO" votes and 122 non-legitimate "YES" votes. That means the accurate vote is...
NO....49
Yes... 8
Originally Posted by Blackdog
I agree with the experts and a proven history that a male, female home is the optimal parental arrangement for child rearing. This has nothing at all to do with gays adopting or raising a family.
Except you are incorrect. EXPERTS have demonstrated that children reared by single sex parents do as well as those in traditional families. But I'll tell you what. You keep making this claim. Please provide links to the "experts" who have made the claim that you are making.
I wait with anticipation for your links.
And I await his response to my link showing the respected associations that have conducted studies showing that his opinion is incorrect...
I told you I am done with you. I have nothing to prove to you and don't care.
You can rant and scream and it makes no difference. The majority of the nation is opposed to redefining marriage, period.
I have said everything I need to say. You want more, read the thread.
I don't think that you actually said that you were done with me, in fact, I was the one that implied that about you. Nice turnaround. In this case, I simply asked a question to you... you can falsely typecast me as ranting and screaming if you like, though that seems like a truly ridiclous conclusion, and not look a the overwhelming evidence that shows that gays can and do raise children just as well as heterosexual parents if you like. I am cool with that.
Wow. The poll's at 54% to 45%, in favor of yes, that it is right to stop gay marriage. Is this forum shifting to the right?
How is this a slam dunk? I'm not even sure why this is important. Wouldn't it be a good thing if gay couples were more reliant on their extended families than hetero families given that children raised within extended families almost always have a better outcome than those who aren't? If anything, it would be a benefit to a child to be raised by a same sex couple for this reason.
Furthermore, assuming that it was some sort of deficit to same sex couples, why does it take any sort of precedence?
And isn't the actual parenting ability of a same sex couple more important?
Are you going to start arguing that abusive heterosexual parents are superior to non abusive homosexual parents simply because the children in the former have more ready access to learning gender roles?
All this would likely mean is that having an extended family would be taken into account when it comes to adoption or foster care. And guess what, it already is for both heterosexual and homosexual couples.
But what we are talking about is the legal marriage, which is the law that allows people to own a piece of paper that the government gives to them that says "we are family because we are married" and the government legally recognizes that couple as "married". Technically, any gay couple who wants to right now could exchange vows, agree to take legal and financial responsibility for each other through several legal documents, and call themselves "married". It just wouldn't be a legal marriage. They wouldn't legally be "family". And that is the issue.
And a foot is always going to be foot, and be for standing on because it is a physical object that we can see and touch and know exactly what it is for, even if we change what we call a foot to calling it a skeft. Marriage is a concept, not a physical thing. Marriage can have many different uses and forms because it is not something that is tangent.
This site is not a reflection of America, niether are the polls.
If you look at any polls between 2008 and 2010 and at things like Prop 8 in Ca, and the amendments passed in Florida. The country is saying no to gay marriage on a wide scale.
Scientific Polls...
July 17, 2008 by Quinnipiac University, with 55 percent opposed, and 36 percent in favor.
Dec 15, 2009 ABC News (58%) of Americans remained opposed to same-sex marriages, while the minority (36%) support them.
CBS Poll: Changing Views On Gay Marriage - CBS News
These polls on message boards are as reflective of Americans as Ron Paul's chances of wining a national election were reflected by the Internet.
Most of the polls are plus or minus 3 to 4 percent.
Civil unions by the way have much broader support. If the moonbats screaming all or nothing would take it slow and just play the political game correctly (not reffering to anyone here). I am certain by 2015, gay marriage mite have been a reality.
Here's the down and dirty of it, and no I don't care to respond to those of you who will troll me for this post.
When it comes down to it, homosexuality is seen as some kind of malfunction or error because the sex drive is incongruent with the actual functions of the physical body parts. Gay man have the sexual attraction of hetero women, and gay women of hetero men.
"Sexy" Smells Different for Gay, Straight Men, Study Says
On an instinctive level, gay men are trying to impregnate other men and lesbian woman are trying to have the children of other women. This is why many traditional sources call homosexuality "confusion", as confusion doesn't always refer to your ability to reason.
It is felt by many that gay marriage, by extension, will be just as incongruent, that it will mirror the biological error compelling people to it.
Even if we went as far as to shake hands and agree that born-homosexuality were some kind of genetic error or deformity, so what? Other couples with genetic error or deformities are allowed to marry and they do just fine.
If it can be demonstrated that gays as a demographic are a high-risk-of-divorce group, just like mixed race and mixed religion couples are, then let's make it harder for anyone to marry with the same pen stroke we give gays "marriage".
The real problem is not who has what wrong with them, it's who can create relationships beneficial to society.
A very interesting study. I've read the Swedish study that it referenced. Interestingly enough it points that there may be a biological link to sexual orientation.
Oh, and btw, your assessment of what it means is completely absurd and the article theorizes nothing close to it.
It is felt by many that gay marriage, by extension, will be just as incongruent, that it will mirror the biological error compelling people to it.
I've seen you argue this before. My position would be pretty similar.
Hmm...pre-edited post quoted, missing name in a quote box, my text left outside of a quote box.....had a long day?
I do the same things when I'm tired.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?